The respondent brought a motion to vary a prior order by reducing child support, while the applicant sought an increase based on reassessment of the respondent’s income.
The court addressed admissibility of expert accounting reports, struck a portion of the applicant’s affidavit lacking a proper source of information, and interpreted a prior order providing for “without prejudice differential” support pending determination of actual incomes.
After reviewing competing expert reports, the court accepted the respondent’s expert evidence regarding corporate losses and determined the respondent’s guideline incomes for 2012, 2013, and 2014.
The court also found the applicant intentionally underemployed and imputed income to her.
Child support was recalculated on a set‑off basis due to the shared parenting arrangement.
